Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
You believe the R0 is presently anywhere near 1? And that it happened in, what, a week?
C'mon. You continue to overstate the ease in which you can drive a virus's R0 down to 1.
And again, how do you explain the fact that those models, even the best case scenarios with complete social isolation, DIDN'T do what you're saying would happen. They didn't bring the peak in sooner - they simply reduced it even flatter and for even longer.
The models that you're trying desperately to defend didn't even do what you claim is so facially obvious as to be beyond reproach.
|
Hong Kong University medical school has kept a running tally of what they believe the R0 of the virus is there. They got it as low as 0.4. So yes, I believe, it can be done.
And the model that you are talking about was assuming 50% social isolation, not 90%. That has been fairly extensively discussed on here over the last day.
If you have a virus with an R0 of 5.7 or 2.7 or 3.5 and you implement 90% of the population in social distancing then you will get the R0 below 1. The degree below one is of course dependent upon the R0, but 90% compliance to a therapy that was assuming 50% compliance will result in a fairly substantially different output, because as soon as I get that level of compliance, I'm already transmitting the virus to fewer people than currently have it, which, by definition, will move the peak in and flatten it.
Your thesis only applies if the R0 remains above 1 but below the critical threshold of the healthcare system.